Question for those who say they are losing rights in the US

The government is not there to lead the people, its there to fulfill the vison of the people - their dream, not the ruling class.

People have this irritating ability to point out the problems, and point the finger, and then just stop and throw the towel in.

When the meeting ajourned back in the day when the blue prints of our government were created, a question was asked -

What type of government did the people get?

The response was telling -
A Republic, if they can keep it.

From day one, its been incumbent of the people to participate in government as the ultimate chcks and balance. The C and B for the 3 branches attempts
to equal them out, with the ultimate power being reserved with the people.

Every 2 years in this country we get to over throw our government. The responses ive seen in this thread are passionate and valid, but need to be
focused to be effective. If the US federal government fails, the American people fail. The world judges us on our actions as a country, not as a
government, because in representative republics the government is the people.

As I stated, people make claims about rights being taken, but they cant explain what those rights are, or they give "rights" that arent rights at all,
they gie blanket examples / statements that dont take into account the different levels of government.

We have elected officals who know what the constitution is, but have never taken the time to read it and understand it. I view that problem as a
direct result of the people, the citizens, not know what it actually says either.

When an uninformed person is elected to office, its generally because the people who voted are also uninformed. We know this because people will state
why they voted for an individual, and the predominant answer is because the person shares my same views or close to them.

I agree with you on a lot of things, it makes me wonder why everyone sees everything so differently.

Don't take what I said the wrong way. I'm sick of it too. Once they've beaten us down far enough they will destroy our freedoms. I know this, you
know this, most of the people at ATS at least have some semblance of knowledge on this but people are to stupid or greedy to do anything about it. I
don't lay down and take it that is just my perspective on the atmosphere. People are pissed because of the erosion of the rights we still have and
most of the people pissed off and doing something about it lack the understanding of the rights that we had in the past. It's tyranny via apathy of
the people and that's what they're counting on.

This is one of the reasons I still go to this site because I still believe that there is a chance for the people to make the government finally
represent them for the first time since the mid 60's and tell all the lobbyists and corporations to go somewhere else. The key is to get true
representation in our government which is definitely not the case currently.

I don't want to turn this into a 2012 presidential debate, but that is why I truly believe that Ron Paul is our man. Once society at large is content,
everything else will begin to fall into place one way or another, it might take a little elbow grease though.

This is a main point of a progressive ideology for a better humanity as a whole. This is not only grassroots American, this is subtle grassroots
western philosophy and the course of history that a increasingly intermingling intelligent race is taking. Not only western people, but the entire
world is becoming alert, aware and increasingly intelligent. The "rights" that you are asking about being infringed upon are far deeper than you
expect.

Many progressive ideas have been trying to find their way into one for all of our history, only the selfishness, greed and irrationality is holding us
back as a force of nature. This is why people are pissed off.

Not so much rights as a general loss of influence in our own political structure, which in turn leads to erosion of rights. Money has taken
over our political system. THus those with hte money to spend have more say than those who do not. The net result is a reduction in both rights and
privileges of people in America.

It's illegal to sleep in a public park, but it's legal to bilk the federal government out of 4 trillion dollars via threats of crashing hte economy.

The Declaration of Independance has absolutely no legal bearing on individual rights for US citizens. It was a nice letter to the crown as to why we
were telling them to bugger off. This reinforces one of my points though that people have an idea of the documents themsleves, but dont know how they
work and apply.

How they apply is not for one, or many to determine. I have the ability and the right to believe whatever it is I wish to believe, whether or not it
is "legal" or not, holds no bearing on such. With that said, I believe that the DoI is correct in standing that humans have the right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Who are you or anybody else to tell me what I believe is wrong? A country supposedly decided "for the people,
by the people" should hold the people's interests and beliefs at heart, not the beliefs and interests of the governors.

Freedom of religion is a good one for another point. Seperation of Church and State, since weve seena lot of that. Seperation of church and state is
nowhere in the constitution.

I never said it was. How about targeting the point I made instead of the point which "weve seena lot of".

Permit requirement is generally required when major public right of ways are affected - IE roads. Your individual rights extend to the point when htey
interfere with others, at which poiint its stops.

Permits are required ALWAYS in this day an age, regardless of whether roads are affected or not. They government is not supposed to assume that a
public assembly is going to interfere with others, and even if it does, based on your belief of how the TSA doesn't infringe upon anything, then the
people who would be affected can just as easily choose to take a different road or choose to shop at a different stop that isn't surrounded by
people. The tracks go both ways.

The right guarantees you that you can individualy own a gun. Taxes or no taxes, you can own a gun.

Have you been to New York City? Do you know it is illegal to to purchase, own, transport, or carry a long gun or a hand gun without a permit, which
you have to jump through loopholes to obtain, and which can be denied for no particular reason. This is a loss of a right - period.

Then it would be a 42 usc violation and you have a right to sue for a civil rights violation. However, being its a blanket statment you gave with no
other info, my guess is there was something else going on you either arent aware of or dont recognize something they did as valid when in fact it is.

I've seen and known people personally who have taken such to court and it has been defended under the Patriot Act so don't try to play me. As for my
personal incident, I was asked to search my vehicle, to which I declined for the officer to search anyway because I had out of state plates. My friend
was searched because he had droopy eyes at two in the morning and was suspect of transporting drugs. This is a violation and there is nothing anyone
can do about it thanks to the acts the have been passed in government.

Again a blanket statement with no info.

I'm not going to give examples. Do a search on ATS. I'm answering your question and yet you are finding any excuse not to accept the answers.

Actually no it has not.

Let us take a very public trial in the past year. Casey Anthony was suspected for murder on July 28, 2008. She was indicted on October 14th, 2008 and
she was arraigned on October 28th, 2008. Her trial began on May 24th, 2011 - nearly THREE YEARS AFTER her arrest, only to be found innocent of the
murder charge 6 weeks later.

The Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines in the 1900's as to a speedy trial:

1. an interest in avoiding prolonged pretrial detention
2. an interest in minimizing the anxiety and loss of reputation accompanying formal public accusation
3. an interest in assuring the ultimate fairness of a delayed trial.

When it comes to that case in particular, the first two were thrown out the _ Not only was she held in prison for three years, but her public
image was completely destroyed prior to the trial in which she was found innocent.

This was not one off shot case, there are many trials that tack even longer to get to, all you have to do is open your eyes.

Not really and again a blanket statement

The blanket statement is, ONCE AGAIN, backed up by reality. Go look at a newspaper for arraignments and look at the amount of bail, it is a public
record, all you have to do is put in the effort.

You use the term birth right - explain what that is and where it comes from, and how the government ook it form you.

A birth right is a right I was born with, in which I don't need permission to exercise it from anybody.

You remember learning about sharecropping in school? Do you remember learning about how the tyranny in sharecropping wasn't in /denying anybody
their rights/, but in the deliberate misinterpretation of those rights in favor of the group of people in power?

Asking such a black and white question such as "what rights have you lost" on ATS is flamebait because by legal definitions, nobody has lost any
rights since around 1860.

But sharecropping didn't take any rights from anyone, either.

Way to lawyer troll ATS.

Its not trolling in the least. What it does is point out the disconnect. Using your example above, if our educational system was better (funding etc)
and we took the time to teach our kids how the government works, what they can and cant do, to instill in them that the government is there only
because the people allow it, that maybe they would have known sharecropping was being portrayed as something its not?

You keep using the term flamebait which I find interesting. Does it somehow offend you that issues are being pointed out that run contrary to what
people think?

If someone walked up to you off the street and wants you to work with him on a joint project, are you going to jump in head first, or would you take
the time to research whats going on and see if its valid and worth the effort?

Its not a hard concept to grasp.

If someone is going to say the government took away a right, that person should be able to clearly state what right was removed, when and how. That
person would also know it is wrong because they would be educated on the subject and could clearly make their argument.

Its that simple...

People have turned this fix the government into the 2 million dollar pen nasa created for space flight. People over complicate it and get so stuck on
it that they dont bother to look around for alternatives, like the Soviets did when they decided to just use pencisl in space.

In your daily life, everything you come into contact with is something you learned. Come to a door, you look for the knob to open it. Gas gauge is
hovering on E, you stop and fill the tank up. You are hungry, so you go get something to eat, etc etc etc.

Why cant people do the same for government? Everytime you buy gas you are dealing with the federal govenment trhrough regulation and taxes. When you
buy food you are dealing with the government and taxes.You have contact with the federal government on a daily basis through various means.

Shouldnt a person also take the time to understand how the government works, since it touched them on a daily basis?

As I have stated time and again, things will only improve when Americans start caring and reassert themselves while bi%@h slapping the government back
into their rightful place - answering to the American people.

Hey XCathdra, Pleasure to see you around again. I think a better way to approach this is if you formulated an interpretation of the constitutional
amendments and who, what, how, when and why they apply. That will certainly give a better understanding of where your argument is coming from.

My personal opinion is that we haven't really LOST any of our rights that are granted to us by The Constitution however the Federal government is
certainly doing the best they can to infringe on the individuals rights. They have made significantly more difficult to speak out, express ourselves,
protect ourselves and live happy productive lives. Their lies have perpetuated a culture that screws everyone else but themselves and only benefits
those in power which means they don't represent us so we have lost the individual right to be properly represented by a state official in congress
etc.

However, the Constitution doesnt grant us those rights. It protects those rights by listing them to prevent the government from trying to remove them,
since they all are based on the premis of a citizen government.

I got tired of seeing the "the government took away my rights" argument that gets tossed around all the time when in reality its not true.

How can we point out a problem the government created when the people pointing that out dont know? I dont think everyone is that way, so excuse the
generalization aspect. People complain that an officer violaed a persons 4th amendment right by searching a car, yet they dont understand how the
amendment works and applied, let alone the fact it applies to the government and not the individual.

How can we reasaonably expect change to happen when we dont know what to change it to?

Thank you for making this out to be a good thread, I believe we are now getting to the root of our problem.

You are right, I think one answer might be a more open and accessible basic and specialist education system. Once again I think that if people are
free, a system would be conceived almost automatically. Right in line with progressive ideology that I talked about in the last post.

I think America needs to do whatever is most inline with this as much as they can get. A better industrial base wouldn't hurt
either.

If a person doesnt understand, how can they claim its broke?
If a person doesnt understand, how can they claim to have a fix for it?

Unfortunately in this area the simple "because I stayed at a holiday inn express" answer doesnt work. This thread was a simple exercise. People
claim the government took something from them, and when asked, it turns out the government didnt take anything from them.

There is so much it is hard to choose.
When, as Americans, we no longer feel we can say, believe, worship, act- with in reasonable law, in public also within reasonable law, as well as
private... then there is too much oversight. Lets look at Comedians as an example. 30 Years ago We had Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, Sam Kinneson,
George Carlin just to name a few... back in the day didn't matter what was said, how it was said, or to whom or what... Have themj start their
careers right now 2011... Every Rights group including Congress would sue, condemn arrest, and sanction for their words... all in the name of a
funny...

Now I didn't mention Kosmo Kramer, perfect example there as what we should condemn, and we did correctly... I just hope he doesn't spend enough
money to get back in the Biz... But at the same time, George Lopez is able to spew his flavor of racism on a syndicated late night show till
recently?

and if we go after lopez we automatically become a "Kramer" too... this is only one example as there are way too many to mention, But freedom of
speech protection, should be lent to ALL Americans, not the flavor of the minute.

It is all a semantics argument and it is ridiculous. You want to talk about a waste of time, this is one right here.

What is your point? The government is taking away our rights, but people don't know how to say it?

Are you denying that they are trying to take away our rights?

You talk about this people inspired government, but that isn't the way it works anymore. People can vote all they want but that isn't going to make
the Washington agenda change. This last run of elected Congress for the Tea Party were all voted in based on their alleged loyalty to the
Constitution, but it didn't DO anything. They didn't change anything, they didn't do anything differently, it all stayed the same and the rights
violations continued.

You waste time on this pointless argument, basically trying to tell people one of two things:

A. There isn't anything worth fighting for because nothing is really wrong - ie. All your rights are just fine.

or

B. You guys are correct, your rights are being taken - but you aren't saying it correctly.

Either way, I don't care. I'm done wasting my time running around in circles. Your mental process is obviously "different" then most people in the
fact that you can't accept the evidence laid before you, either that or it goes against your overall point and so you try to make up bullocks to
disregard it. It is over. The point you have been trying to make, whatever it was, is lost and deluded in a sea of mockery and ridiculousness.

To summarize, your entire argument is based on "They didn't give your the rights, so they can't take them away."

Well they have, and they continue to do so. Whether or not people accept it or not is moot, because for not accepting it, and choosing to exercise
those rights without abiding by their rules for such, they will simply taken more rights away and put you in a cage.

Thank you for the philosophy lesson but there comes a time when reality needs to set in.

Originally posted by RSF77
I agree with you on a lot of things, it makes me wonder why everyone sees everything so differently.

I dont think they sees things all that different. What I see is a massive amount of mathmatical formulaes being discussed, with people getting stuck
on the equation, while ignoring the fact that the answer is exactly the same.

Person A sees the answer as 4+4
Person B sees the answer as 10-2
Person C sees the answer as 4x2

They fail to notice the end result is exactly the same.

One of the greatest advantages, as well as disadvantages, for our form of government is the fact its capable of accepting more than just one solution
to a problem.

People need to take a step back, look at the problem, look for a solution, and then implament the solution instead of waiting for the government to
get around to doing it.

Example - The Operation Wall Street pretests.

Geitner announced in a Q and A session that people are upset because of they buy a bag of "plants" they get fined and can go to jail but the people
who ran the conomy into the ground, who got bailed out, and ho are now making money hand over fist, got nothing. He stated the investigations are
coming down the pipeline.

That tells me the people still can influence the government. If that were not the case, and the government were not afraid of the people, it never
would have made the news and no actions would have been taken.

The goal is to beat them at their own game and the only way to do that is through education. In this instance we have their gamebook and strategies
(constitution). The next step is to learn that play book inside and out and use it against them.

Not so much rights as a general loss of influence in our own political structure, which in turn leads to erosion of rights. Money has taken
over our political system. THus those with hte money to spend have more say than those who do not. The net result is a reduction in both rights and
privileges of people in America.

It's illegal to sleep in a public park, but it's legal to bilk the federal government out of 4 trillion dollars via threats of crashing hte economy.

Complete overhaul of the educated system to make it more efficient and more accessible to every American, no matter whatever label he might fit. All
people should receive as much education as we, as a society can give them.

Those bags of "plants" is one of those things we can argue about later.

I am saying the manner in which you think the constitutiona applies is not correct, and its my beleif based on conversations so far that the reason
for that view is from a lack of understanding of it. Based on your view, if I own 10 acres of property and I catch you hunting on my land, and I tell
you to leave, your view is who am I to tell you you cant be there.

Thats not a democratic point of view, that would be an anarchy setup.

The nazis believed exterminating the Jews was a good idea. It doesnt make it right.

No really they are not required to issue permits for all protests.. This is a prime example oif what im talking about. The federal government has
nothing to do with issuing permits for a protest in New York or anywhere else. The requirements to shut down a public right of way in New York to
proteest will be different that the requirements to shut down a public right of way in LA to protest.

Having only a passing familiarity with the law / constitution is the problem, and its evident in this repsonse about permits.

The TSA procedure is voluntary. You dont have to comply with it.
The function of law enforcement is to protect society, not the individual.
The police have just as much of a right to go to a protest than the protesters do.

Again a passing familiarity with the law and constitution is the problem.

Originally posted by gwydionblack
Have you been to New York City? Do you know it is illegal to to purchase, own, transport, or carry a long gun or a hand gun without a permit, which
you have to jump through loopholes to obtain, and which can be denied for no particular reason. This is a loss of a right - period.

and yet a person can jump through those hoops and get a gun.

Originally posted by gwydionblack
I've seen and known people personally who have taken such to court and it has been defended under the Patriot Act so don't try to play me. As for my
personal incident, I was asked to search my vehicle, to which I declined for the officer to search anyway because I had out of state plates. My friend
was searched because he had droopy eyes at two in the morning and was suspect of transporting drugs. This is a violation and there is nothing
anyonecan do about it thanks to the acts the have been passed in government.

Are you a soverign citizen by chance?
The Patriot act has nothing to do with a 42 usc violation.
I do law enfocement for a living and I know what im talking about. Again, a passing familiarty with the law and the consitution is the problem.

As far as the reasons given for your search, I dont buy it. What state did this occur in? What agency? what time? where were you at? what was the
reason for the stop?

Originally posted by gwydionblack
I'm not going to give examples. Do a search on ATS. I'm answering your question and yet you are finding any excuse not to accept the
answers.

Because the answers being given have nothing to do witht he question I asked. I would usggest you get your info from sources other than ATS when it
comes to legal issues and what not.

Originally posted by gwydionblack
Let us take a very public trial in the past year. Casey Anthony was suspected for murder on July 28, 2008. She was indicted on October 14th, 2008 and
she was arraigned on October 28th, 2008. Her trial began on May 24th, 2011 - nearly THREE YEARS AFTER her arrest, only to be found innocent of the
murder charge 6 weeks later.

And the reason things went on as long as they did was due to her lawyers, not the state. There were challeneges to the entry of evidence across the
entire spectrum. The case involved 3 different counties and mulltiple agencies, invluding federal., which adds a dimension to the case on
jurisdiction.

Deposition of witnesses, going back and double checking reports, witnesses etc. The trial lasted that length so the person accused of the crime could
challenege the goverments case.

Forcing a trial before the defense is ready would actually violate her rights. So, again, a lack of understanding of the law and the constitution is
the problem.

The Supreme Court ruling applies to the POrosecution, not the defendant. A defendant can take as much time as they need to ensure they receive the
best legal counsel and best possible outcome.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.

Thank you for making this out to be a good thread, I believe we are now getting to the root of our problem.

You are right, I think one answer might be a more open and accessible basic and specialist education system. Once again I think that if people are
free, a system would be conceived almost automatically. Right in line with progressive ideology that I talked about in the last post.

I think America needs to do whatever is most inline with this as much as they can get. A better industrial base wouldn't hurt
either.

edit on 15-10-2011 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)

Actually thank you for contriubuting to the thread. As I said my intention was not to tick anyone off or try to make people look stupid, or defend the
government and its actions.

I want people to open their eyes and be familiar with whats going on., to participate in government at all levels and to once again start caring about
what happens here. People fail to realize that they can still force change at any point they choose.

That people are so slack jawed howl at the moon lazy when it comes to the government and how it works, that the people become their own worst enemies
and cause the reduction / restriction of rights and not the government.

This occurs beause people dont care to familiarize themselves with how the government operates at all levels. It occurs because people cherry pick
parts of the constitution they like while throwing out the rest. It occurs because people want to be able to partake in something that the majority of
people say should be illegal.

If you cant grasp those key conepts, then you are right, continuing any further would be a waste of time.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.